Digital Foundry Analyzes Metro Exodus's Visual Fidelity

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
While many reviews have already dug into the technical aspects of 4A Games' newest Metro title, Digital Foundry recently posted a video showing how all that fancy tech actually impacts the in-game experience. Like many other games and benchmarks, Metro Exodus is pretty and demanding, but DF points out that those visuals do an excellent job of making the game feel immersive, as opposed to coming off as gimmicky features. The particle effects, for example, really contribute to Metro's moody atmosphere, while little touches like a remarkably detailed first person body view and the conspicuously detailed shadow it casts all make the game feel realistic.

Check out the video on Metro Exodus's immersiveness here, or read Eurogamer's lengthy interview with 4A programmer Ben Archard and CTO Oles Shishkovstov if you're more interested in the technical aspects.

The open world maps are completely different to the enclosed tunnels maps of the other games. Environments are larger and have way more objects in them, visible out to a much greater distance. It is therefore a lot harder to cull objects from both update and render. Objects much further away still need to update and animate. In the tunnels you could mostly cull an object in the next room so that only its AI was active, and then start updating animations and effects when it became visible, but the open world makes that a lot trickier... So, a good chunk of that extra time is spent with updating more AIs and more particles and more physics objects, but also a good chunk of time is spent feeding the GPU the extra stuff it is going to render. We do parallelise it where we can. The engine is built around a multithreaded task system. Entities such as AIs or vehicles, update in their own tasks. Each shadowed light, for example, performs its own frustum-clipped gather for the objects it needs to render in a separate task. This gather is very much akin to the gathering process for the main camera, only repeated many times throughout the scene for each light. All of that needs to be completed before the respective deferred and shadow map passes can begin (at the start of the frame).
 
No doubt the game looks gorgeous. As a professional CG artist that does alot of lighting, the devs know how to 'paint with light'. Mad props. Still not buying it though lol
 
I will wait for it to arrive in Steam. My backlog is 250 games deep so I can wait.

Same here, this is my plan.

Sounds like this will be one of those where you have to choose between lower resolutions and high settings, or higher resolutions and lower settings.

Maybe its just as well I won't get it until 2020, because to enjoy all these cool effects at 4k, I'll probably need a next gen GPU... I doubt even the 2080ti would be sufficient.
 
I've yet to play the first 2 even though I own them....I'll give them a go

The first two are good games with immersive stories and environments. The first one (2033) is probably better than the second (Last Light) but still good.

They are very linear tunnel shooters though. That's where Exodus is supposed to stand out, as it is the first open world game in the series. 4A are masters of creating immersive environments with good stories, but up until now everything has been very linear. This is the reason so many people have been looking forward to Exodus.
 
I'll probably buy this game next year when it's been better optimized and costs around $20.00.

What makes you think it is unoptimized?

I hear this term thrown around casually by so many people in cases where it really doesn't apply.

Just because you can't play at Ultra settings at 60fps on a mid to high end GPU, doesn't mean it is poorly optimized. Sometimes good graphical fidelity actually requires a lot of GPU horsepower.

In the past most games - at launch - even on the highest end GPU available could only run medium settings. That's because developers were planning for the future, and leaving something in there for players to enjoy even in the next couple of generations to enjoy. Crysis is a good example of this, but there are many others. Metro 2033 with everything set to ultra still challenges a relatively high end system even today, and it does look good.

I feel like all this complaining about "optimization" has just made devs drop the graphical fidelity, because every single kiddie wants to run everything at Ultra on launch. That is a shame, and I feel games have suffered because of it.

Honestly, if this were done right like it used to be, people who have the hardware to support playable framerates at Ultra settings at launch should not exist. People who have hardware to support playing at "High" at launch should be an extremely small and elite crowd with very high end systems.

"Very high" and "Ultra" settings should be forward looking for next gen hardware.
 
Last edited:
Just because you can't play at Ultra settings at 60fps on a mid to high end GPU, doesn't mean it is poorly optimized.

Guaranteed the majority of people who call games unoptimized are trying to reach consistent 100-144FPS, or are using 4K. A highend GPU should be able to render a steady 60FPS at 1080 or 1440 with max settings in a modern title.
 
Guaranteed the majority of people who call games unoptimized are trying to reach consistent 100-144FPS, or are using 4K. A highend GPU should be able to render a steady 60FPS at 1080 or 1440 with max settings in a modern title.

To me "unoptimized" means high system requirements without the graphical fidelity to show for it.

So, if a game looks like shit, but still doesn't get good framerates on new, decent hardware, by all means, call it unoptimized.

But if said game looks beautiful, but in order to be beautiful takes a heck of a system to run it, that's just a demanding game, and it is demanding for a reason.
 
With the more accurate lighting model with light bounce but not working HDR is a disappointment, that would enhance the lighting even more.

Some of the problem noted when not ray tracing in Exodus, other games would bake ray trace lighting into the textures (actually this can look better). Since lighting is dynamic and real time ray tracing for lighting (this has to be a ray trace/rasterizing model), bake lighting would be very difficult to do with changing light sources as in clouds/sun position/objects moving in and out. Looks like a masterpiece here and does look amazing.

DLSS -> Fail

Seems like a very heavy price tag to play this game in it's full glory at a higher resolution. Does it support mGPU? Anyways looks like a RTX card, higher end one would be needed for full effect, 2080 or more appropriately 2080Ti.
 
Last edited:
No doubt the game looks gorgeous. As a professional CG artist that does alot of lighting, the devs know how to 'paint with light'. Mad props. Still not buying it though lol

I was reading this and thinking to myself, "wait for wait... waaaaaiiit for it." and boom you said it, "but I'm still not buying it." HAHAHA.
 
High system requirements provide replay-ability as it's really cool to play the game after 6-8 years on a brand new PC.
 
One thing that kind of popped out at me watching this, is that in many scenes, the major problem/difference between the two, was the lack of contrast when using rasterization v DXR. Surely the game devs could have easily fixed it with a gamma curve change in those scenes?

But I will admit, if the performance with DXRT turned on, on my 2070 is acceptable, then I might buy this game, just for the visuals alone!
 
Back
Top